A coalition of meat industry groups recently announced that they would be opening a Canadian Meat Advocacy office in Beijing, China. The groups include the Canadian Cattle Association, Canadian Pork Council, and Canadian Meat Council. Agriculture Canada is providing a project development grant of $223,000. The intent of the new advocacy office, according to their media pronouncement, is – to include advancing the interests of Canadian red meat in China, establishing and enhancing the presence of Canadian meat in the Chinese market, addressing market access issues, mitigating potential trade disruption, and building trust with Chinese officials, industry leaders.
It goes on to extrapolate – that this initiative, is a first of its kind, aims to strengthen connections with the Chinese red meat sector, government agencies, and consumers alike, fostering an enduring relationship between the two countries. That would be a great leap forward if it could decrease the Chinese government’s arbitrary trade restrictions like what occurred with the Chinese Princess incarceration case. That retaliatory incident cost Canadian ag exports billions in lost sales to China.
The pronouncement states the new advocacy office is the first of its kind. That might cause one to presume that no other Canadian government, industry agency, trade office, or embassy has done any of the proposed advocacy activities. Perhaps some or all of those aforementioned entities did carry out some of the advocacy activities that the new office will carry out, but not to the satisfaction of Canadian meat producers and industry groups. One presumes research was done by the proponents of the new advocacy office that justified its need and establishment. That causes some further wondering as to what all the existing Canadian and provincial trade offices are doing in China.
A cursory review of government websites shows that the Canadian government, through various entities, operates 10 trade advocacy offices throughout China. I suspect the folks at those trade offices are already doing some of the activities proposed for the new meat advocacy office. Depending on the year, meat exports to China represent about 25% of the total exports of $22 billion. It would be fair to presume that Canadian trade officers in China are devoting at least 25% of their time to advocating for more Canadian meat exports. Presumably, there are also political and intergovernmental officers in the Canadian embassy in Beijing who deal with the more sensitive government-to-government meat trade issues.
Besides Canadian trade officers, there is a Canadian Agriculture and Food Trade Commission Service that maintains 18 trade officers in 15 global markets, with China being one of those markets. Presumably, those folks are also fervently looking after some meat advocacy in China, at least for part of their time. I note that the renowned Canada Beef Inc. has had an office in China for some time. However, I am told they are not in the advocacy business but more in actual beef merchandising and promotion for Canadian exporters and Chinese buyers. There is also an Alberta-specific trade officer in Beijing paid for by the Alberta government whose role, I expect, is to promote/advocate for Alberta-specific exports like meat. Other provinces also have such province-specific trade officers in Beijing. One might expect that all those Canadian/Provincial/Industry trade and advocacy officers in China must be bumping into each other trying to drum markets for the same Canadian meat exports. It should be no surprise if one of those trade officers becomes the new CEO of the new-fangled Canadian Meat Advocacy Office. But I digress.
To be fair, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the new meat advocacy office. Surely, it is intended to fill some gap in meat advocacy that a platoon of existing China trade officers cannot do for the Canadian meat industry in China – time will tell. Interestingly, the Canadian government has a report entitled “Evaluation of Canadian Trade Offices in China.” It notes the hard work of the offices and their contribution to trade but states it’s difficult to quantify their success due to the myriad difficulties of operating in China. Not unexpectantly from an entrenched entitled federal bureaucracy, they could not admit any real mistakes but instead recommended that besides administrative efficiencies, more money and support be directed towards the offices in China.
Finally, with all these trade/advocacy/promotion officers in China, one suspects that redundancy does happen. Perhaps they could all get together and carve out specific responsibilities, or is that too much common sense?
Will Verboven is an ag opinion writer.
